Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ireland, Maxim Peshkov, debates with Seán Butler in UCC and speaks to Motley’s Aaron Noonan
On the 12th of November The Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ireland, Maxim Peshkov, visited UCC to take part in a debate with International Law lecturer Seán Butler, on the current strife between Ukraine and Russia. The debate focussed primarily on the implications of the sanctions and counter-sanctions placed by Europe and Russia on one another, in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the subsequent War in Donbass.
Mr Peshkov’s visit to UCC comes at a time of great unease in international politics, as Russia’s policies in Ukraine, along with its strategy in the Middle East and its conservative views on gay rights, increasingly leave the nation at odds with the international community. Indeed, the annual G20 summit in Australia last week focused primarily on Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Russian President, Vladimir Putin, received a frosty reception from his western counterparts in Brisbane, as he once again called for an end to economic sanctions on Russia. Mr Peshkov echoed these calls as he defended his country’s policies and actions in Wednesday’s debate. He began his speech by offering an impassioned plea to the audience, not to believe “all rumours about my country.”
Maintaining that Russia did not initiate the trade war that sanctions have brought on, Mr Peshkov blamed the European Union and the United States for “inventing” justifications for implementing the sanctions, adding that Russia kept its patience for as long as it could, before resorting to counter-sanctions. As a member of the European Union, Ireland has also been subject to such counter-sanctions from Russia, which include a blanket ban on food imports from EU countries. In 2011, Ireland exported €150 million worth of food and drink to the Russian Federation, including €90 million worth of meat and €4.5 million worth of cheese. Mr Peshkov acknowledged that sanctions would put a strain on the agricultural sector of Ireland, saying “I would say that this step was rather painful for the governmental structures of Ireland, but this action was very pleasant mainly for local farmers.”
Peshkov: Russia was forced into its current position by Europe and the United States.
Mr Peshkov sought to put forward the idea that Russia was forced into its current position by Europe and the United States. He argued that sanctions on Russia were politically motivated, to create greater competition between Russian and American oil in Europe. In essence, to extend American influence in the former Soviet Union through increased energy exports to the region.
The latter part of Mr Peshkov’s address was dedicated to the wider situation in Ukraine, as he sought to clarify Russia’s position: “[Russian] armed forces have never been on the territory of Ukraine. We don’t intend to send any forces to this country.” An interesting position to hold, given that a statement released by NATO just hours before the debate reported that Russian military convoys had once again entered eastern Ukraine.
“We are not part of this conflict.”
Regardless of repeated accusations from several countries and intergovernmental institutions that Russia is directly complicit in the War in Donbass, it has denied any involvement. Mr Peshkov reiterated this sentiment by categorically stating that “we are not part of this conflict.” Indeed, he accused the European Union of igniting the conflict, stating that while Russia was not explicitly against a strengthening of relations between Europe and Ukraine, they hoped to sit down and discuss the implications of such a move. Instead, he argued, Kiev received an ultimatum from Brussels – to go with Europe or to go with Russia. Such an ultimatum, he reasoned, was a precursor to the conflict in Ukraine.
Mr Peshkov ended his address by arguing that the goal of Europe’s sanctions, “to try to burn a feeling of disgust to our own government,” has not come to fruition. Rather, he asserted, the sanctions have engendered anger toward Europe among the Russian people.
Offering his rebuttal, Mr Butler said that he believes that, regarding Ukraine, Russia “has made some very dangerous decisions, ones that threatened world stability and ultimately threaten the Russian state itself.”
The core of his speech revolved around international law – its importance in world affairs and how he believed that Russia’s actions in Ukraine breached Article 2 (IV) of the UN Charter which states that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”Mr Butler offered several instances where he believed that Russia had breached the charter. “First of all, the occupying of airports and other strategic locations after the Ukrainian government fell. I’m talking about the Duma voting in favour of using military force in Ukraine. I’m talking about the ultimatum that Ukrainian troops received on the night of March 3rd, that they had to surrender their control of the Crimean peninsula by dawn of the 4th.”
“I would be worried about the level of control that the Russian government have over their soldiers if hundreds or thousands of them are participating in a war in another country.”
He went on to say that the official annexation of the Crimean peninsula, along with the crossing of tanks and artillery from Russia into Ukraine, were also blatant violations. Mr Peskov had earlier reiterated the stance of the Russian government, which is that no Russian troops have set foot on Ukrainian soil. Mr Butler argued that although the counter-argument is that those fighting in Ukraine are “volunteers,” he “would be worried about the level of control – even if we take the them at their word – that the Russian government have over their soldiers if hundreds or thousands of them are participating in a war in another country, with either, the implicit consent of the Russian government, or, that they are unable to stop them.”
He went on to say that “if the Russia government truly respected international law, or truly respected the sovereignty of another country, would not permit its own soldiers to enter into other war zones to fight for a cause that as the Ambassador himself said, is not the Russian’s cause.”
Further expanding on this, Mr Butler disputed the Russian argument that it had a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) in the Crimean peninsula, i.e that it had to intervene for humanitarian reasons. “What harms were these people facing that required the vast Russian state to come and protect them?” Certainly, according to Mr Butler, no extreme harm that would require the invocation of R2P.
Regarding the sanctions that the European Union have placed on Russia, he said that the sanctions were necessary to send a strong message to Russia that its actions in Ukraine are not acceptable in the international community. “If we don’t draw the line right here, right now, then we have no idea what’s going to happen next. We do not know the Russian government has an interest in doing what it has done in Ukraine in states like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.”
While he acknowledged, as did Mr Peshkov, that sanctions will be damaging to both European countries such as Ireland, as well as Russia, Mr Butler insisted that “this is the price we must pay for our values. Moral life is not always easy life. We must stand in defence of peace, in defence of the rule of law, and in defence of international consensus.”
After both speakers had finished and questions had been answered, a vote was taken among the audience as to whether the European Union should lift its sanctions on Russia. The result was a decisive no. Eastern Ukraine remains heavily engulfed in hostilities. Efforts to resolve the conflict are heavily marred by a deep, mutual distrust between the European Union and Russia. As evinced by the debate between Mr Peshkov and Mr Butler, two irreconcilable narratives have emerged out of the conflict. Russia maintains that its involvement in Ukraine has been minimal, with absolutely zero military intervention or threat of force, while Europe and the United States maintain that Russia is actively engaging in a ground war with Ukrainian troops near the eastern border, a gross violation of international law. Sanctions and counter-sanctions, while effectual in many ways, only enhance the misgivings the east and the west hold for one another. While sanctions are a useful tool to protest against perceived wrongdoings in the international system, they rarely offer a long-term solution to conflicts.
Motley was grateful to be afforded a few minutes to talk to Mr Peshkov before the debate started. Seeing as the primary focus of the debate was centred around the Ukraine crisis, Motley instead focussed on an issue that has been the subject of much debate in Russia over the past year: gay rights. In 2013, the Duma unanimously passed a law that made distributing material to children that promoted homosexuality as a norm in society a criminal offence. In contrast to this, Ireland will hold a referendum next year on the legalisation of same-sex marriage, with upwards of 67% of the electorate poised to vote yes, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll. Mr Peshkov was asked if he could account for the disparity in gay acceptance between our two countries. He responded by saying “it’s your choice who to marry. I think it’s your choice and your destiny. If you want to have same-sex marriage, you’re welcome. We don’t. It’s our moral standards. You have your own, we have our own way.”
70% of those who voted in these polls said that “the best family to have children are natural families – father and mother. It’s a rather interesting, psychological paradox maybe in your country.
He went on to say that although a majority approved of same-sex marriage in Ireland, that 70% of those who voted in these polls said that “the best family to have children are natural families – father and mother. It’s a rather interesting, psychological paradox maybe in your country.” An interesting paradox indeed, but Motley was unable to find recorded evidence to back up such a claim. A Behaviours and Attitudes poll from August 2014 showed that 65% of respondents agreed that gay adoption was acceptable. While it is easy to account for the dissimilarity between our two nations on gay rights as having different “moral standards,” it is difficult to accept that treating homosexuality as abnormal in society is a “moral standard” to hold for any nation.